MasterMind
New member
:numbered:
Saddam caught on tape talking of WMD's
- Thread starter snakebyte05
- Start date
- Status
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
CDB said:
Who is sending who? And who is buying what? The population ASSUMES its for peace. They aren't being fed some line that the end result of this war will cause peace to break out in the middle east but they are being told that it would be better without the thread of WMD being obtained by a dictator who we already know would use them and has admitted on tape it would be "easy" (well Aziz did).
And no, ideology doens't need to blind you to reality. Those who are let their emotions run rampant generally do though.
I think many of your points are based on what you think is going on there, not what is actually going on there. If you were to base the American political and social sytems based off news reports, we'd look pretty pathetic as well.
I can't count the number of liberals who started yelling "civil war" 2 weeks ago. Has it happened? No.
And saying there is only three types of people that live there and they all want to kill each other is pretty ridiculous IMO.
I think eventually there will be freedom there and I don't see anything wrong with beleiving that. Its a matter of history that something along these lines takes years and years AFTER hostilities stop.
I think people are way too pessimistic just because its taking time. Anyone who looks in the history books would understand this and those who are stating it was a mistake, we mismanaged this and that are those who are ignorant of the facts or want to believe what CNN reports or what is said on Air America.
You are one of the few that actually criticize and offer a solution but most just crticize withouth offering any solution. They are more worried about bashing the administration any chance they can get then actually tihnking about the problem.
CDB
Registered User
Bobo said:
That I wouldn't agree with as I've heard it mentioned time and again by Bush and his administration, basically that democracy and peace are synonymous, and we're bringing both to Iraq.
Not precisely what I meant. I was trying to say that the only people who let their ideology of how the world works get in the way of how it actually is are idealists. I think it's good to have ideals, so long as you realize this isn't an ideal world.
However, I rarely watch the news except for Fox, most of what I read I get off various sites on the net, positive and negative coverage, and out of mags like Foreign Affairs, National Interest, Political Science Quarterly, etc. It's a good mix of views and it's what I base my opinions on. I surely wouldn't base them on television news as I think it's the poorest source of info out there, though I like a couple of news analysis programs like O'Reilly. That and history, which seems to show that whenever we or anyone else gets involved in foreign disputes, wars, border conflicts, etc., things seem to get worse, if not for us then the people over there. And as I said, when a positive comes out of an intervention it's usually the correction of a negative situation caused by a previous intervention. To take a more hollistic view it's just my opinion things would have been better off overall had we avoided the first intervention.
Not yet, no. But it could very easily. Some hope comes from the fact that the central government hasn't broken to pieces. But that doesn't trump the fact that there are deep ethnic and sectarian divisions in that 'nation' that could tear it apart at a moment's notice. And that being the case, maybe arming them isn't the best idea right now. The problem is the population isn't a homogeneous group, and we're not dealing with an ideological war like we were in Vietnam, which is oddly enough what the Bush administration is basing their approach to this on.
It might be a bit simplified, but that is what it comes down to. The Sunnis in the minority held power because of Saddam for a long time, during which Shiites and Kurds were oten times treated very poorly to say the least. Now through sheer numbers the Shiites and the Kurds are the ones who are coming into control of the emerging Iraqi army and police force. The Sunnis are afraid of becoming the oppressed minority and being the victims of revenge campaigns.
I agree it's possible and would be beneficial, I'm not too sure the current plan will get us there. One example people point to are the pseudo guerrilla attacks in Germany after they were defeated in WWII, which I believe continued for up to five years afterward. The timeline doesn't bother me, when it comes to this stuff I have no problems thinking in decades, even centuries. What bothers me is the current plan of action.
I'm not much for people who offer problems with no solutions either. Personally though I wonder about our current strategy because I don't think what the government is trying to do can be done in tandem. In large part my strategy would be Occupy, Pacify and Disarm, use our military presence there and the threat of favoritism toward competing groups to develop an equitable, mostly agreed upon power sharing among the groups along whatever framework is necessary, and then begin training them to take over and withdrawing US troops. Basically I think Bush is trying to do too much at once, and that there are certain issues and realities in the area that need to be dealt with before we start helping them build an army and a police force which could easily be a case of us nursing a sick snake back to health only for it to bite us.
The rapid democratization is something I would have avoided specifically. Seems like it could be used as a tool of oppression if the system is railroaded into existence. While Saddam was no saint, I think there should have been and still could be a wider amnesty for Baath party members so the Sunnis will have some credible leadership to gather behind, which in the end would lead I think to a more successful process no matter the overall strategy. As it is I think that group is too splintered to present any real case for themselves in the current government, so they resort to supporting the insurgency. In order for them to be a real part of that government they have to believe their voices matter in it, to counter the larger populations which might very well align against them.
But, we both seem to agree CNN sucks.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
CDB said:
I've never heard anyone say both were the same. One CAN lead to another but I've never heard anyone say we are bringing peace to Iraq and thats why the military is there. We were eliminating a threat, liberating a people form a dictator and giving them a chance to rule for themslelves. That gives them a better chance AT peace but they certainly are not one and the same. And I also think the "eliminating a threat" has more to do with it that any liberation. Thats just a nice little rallying cry.
If you want a better view on whats actually happening over there just take a look at what some of the reporters are saying that are coming back now because of the over dramatized hype of civil war (within the last 2 weeks). You will hear overwhelmingly that the Iraq army is MUCH better than what is reported, the situation is FAR better than what is reported and that the idea of civil war happening is pretty outrageous. In fact Iraq deployed 100k troops right after the bombings for fear of reprisal and according to most handled the situation quite well. Whether we are handling the situation correctly now could easily be debated because there is no template to be followed. I actually agree for the most part because you can't establish equal parties while at the same time proclaiming you are helping establish democracy. I tihnk the insurgency is becoming less and less of a problem as voiced by numerous generals. They have stated the secular violence is more of a threat and even then the Iraqi police and military are handling that situation better than expected.
We just never hear about that because it simply doens't make for intersting news or fuel for the Bush bashing. The article this thread is based on is another exmaple. You don't hear about it at all. Here is a video, proof, that Saddam hid chemical weapons while inspections took place, wanted to develop more, and admitted it would be easy to use on foreign soil. Instead you hear about a port deal and Dubai because its easier to discredit and humiliate the current administration with that than focus on a video that supports their actions.
BioHazzard
Banned
This just in...... Good news for America and the free word.
Invalid Link Removed
March 9, 2006
Some Sunnis Targeting al - Qaida in Iraq
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:26 p.m. ET
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Residents reported curious declarations hanging from mosque walls and market stalls recently in Ramadi, the Sunni Muslim insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad. The fliers said Iraqi militants had turned on and were killing foreign al-Qaida fighters, their one-time allies.
A local tribal leader and Iraq's Defense Ministry have said followers of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, have begun fleeing Anbar province and Ramadi, its capital, to cities and mountain ranges near the Iranian border.
''So far we have cleared 75 percent of the province and forced al-Qaida terrorists to flee to nearby areas,'' said Osama al-Jadaan, a leader of the Karabila tribe, which has thousands of members living along the border with Syria.
He claimed his people have captured hundreds of foreigner fighters and handed them to authorities. The drive, dubbed Operation Tribal Chivalry, is designed to secure the country's borders with Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to prevent foreign fighters from crossing in.
After the U.S. invasion in March 2003, residents of the province -- which also includes cities like Fallujah, Haditha and Qaim -- became known for their violent anti-American sentiments. The province is still the most dangerous in Iraq for U.S. troops. In the past two days alone, two U.S. Marines were killed by hostile fire there.
Relations between residents and the foreign fighters started to sour, however, when the foreigners started killing Iraqis suspected of having links to the Americans or even for holding a government job.
The rift became an outright split four months ago, with a wave of assassinations and bombings that killed scores of Anbar residents. The attacks were blamed on al-Qaida.
''We were fed up with the situation,'' said one Ramadi resident, complaining about closed roads, unemployment and a lack of security. The resident spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared for his life.
In late November, tribal and religious leaders, former army officers and hundreds of ordinary Iraqis met in Ramadi with U.S. military commanders for a first-ever comprehensive dialogue on what could be done to speed a U.S. withdrawal.
Afterward, gunmen began killing some of those who had met with the Americans or who had urged Sunnis in the region to vote in the U.S.-backed parliamentary elections on Dec. 15. Several top clerics and a tribal leader were killed.
The deadliest attack -- a suicide bombing Jan. 5 among a line of police recruits in Ramadi -- killed at least 58, including U.S. troops.
Stunned city residents turned on al-Qaida, and al-Jadaan, of the Karabila tribe, announced an agreement with the U.S.-backed Iraqi government to help with security.
The moves by al-Jadaan's men and Iraqi army units against al-Qaida forced many of the foreign fighters to flee to central and eastern areas of Iraq -- some to the mountains near Iran -- that have large Sunni populations, al-Jadaan said.
That prompted tribes in the central city of Hawija, where some al-Qaida fighters sought refuge, to issue a statement earlier this week openly declaring war on foreign al-Qaida members.
The declaration was prompted by the killing a week ago of tribal leader Suhaib Abdullah al-Obeidi. Al-Qaida also killed three Shiites -- a father and his two sons -- and a Communist Party boss.
''We are against the killing of civilians for sectarian or ethnic reasons. That's why we are shedding the blood of Muslim extremists, especially al-Qaida,'' said Abul-Rahman Mansheed, a top Sunni politician in Hawija.
Army Maj. Gen. Anwar Mohammed Amin, in the nearby city of Kirkuk, said the military soon would launch a major attack, with help from the local tribesmen, to clear that region of al-Qaida as well.
Claims such as those issued by the tribesmen and local military officers are nearly impossible to confirm, but the considerable drop in suicide bombings throughout the country recently indicates operations by al-Qaida foreigners have been hampered.
Al-Jadaan, the Anbar tribal leader, looked confidently to the future and -- if his prediction comes true -- what likely will be a hero's role in the eyes of the U.S. military.
''Under my leadership and that of our brothers in other tribes, we are getting close to the shelter of this terrorist,'' al-Jadaan said of al-Zarqawi. ''We will capture him soon.''
Invalid Link Removed
March 9, 2006
Some Sunnis Targeting al - Qaida in Iraq
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:26 p.m. ET
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Residents reported curious declarations hanging from mosque walls and market stalls recently in Ramadi, the Sunni Muslim insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad. The fliers said Iraqi militants had turned on and were killing foreign al-Qaida fighters, their one-time allies.
A local tribal leader and Iraq's Defense Ministry have said followers of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, have begun fleeing Anbar province and Ramadi, its capital, to cities and mountain ranges near the Iranian border.
''So far we have cleared 75 percent of the province and forced al-Qaida terrorists to flee to nearby areas,'' said Osama al-Jadaan, a leader of the Karabila tribe, which has thousands of members living along the border with Syria.
He claimed his people have captured hundreds of foreigner fighters and handed them to authorities. The drive, dubbed Operation Tribal Chivalry, is designed to secure the country's borders with Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to prevent foreign fighters from crossing in.
After the U.S. invasion in March 2003, residents of the province -- which also includes cities like Fallujah, Haditha and Qaim -- became known for their violent anti-American sentiments. The province is still the most dangerous in Iraq for U.S. troops. In the past two days alone, two U.S. Marines were killed by hostile fire there.
Relations between residents and the foreign fighters started to sour, however, when the foreigners started killing Iraqis suspected of having links to the Americans or even for holding a government job.
The rift became an outright split four months ago, with a wave of assassinations and bombings that killed scores of Anbar residents. The attacks were blamed on al-Qaida.
''We were fed up with the situation,'' said one Ramadi resident, complaining about closed roads, unemployment and a lack of security. The resident spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared for his life.
In late November, tribal and religious leaders, former army officers and hundreds of ordinary Iraqis met in Ramadi with U.S. military commanders for a first-ever comprehensive dialogue on what could be done to speed a U.S. withdrawal.
Afterward, gunmen began killing some of those who had met with the Americans or who had urged Sunnis in the region to vote in the U.S.-backed parliamentary elections on Dec. 15. Several top clerics and a tribal leader were killed.
The deadliest attack -- a suicide bombing Jan. 5 among a line of police recruits in Ramadi -- killed at least 58, including U.S. troops.
Stunned city residents turned on al-Qaida, and al-Jadaan, of the Karabila tribe, announced an agreement with the U.S.-backed Iraqi government to help with security.
The moves by al-Jadaan's men and Iraqi army units against al-Qaida forced many of the foreign fighters to flee to central and eastern areas of Iraq -- some to the mountains near Iran -- that have large Sunni populations, al-Jadaan said.
That prompted tribes in the central city of Hawija, where some al-Qaida fighters sought refuge, to issue a statement earlier this week openly declaring war on foreign al-Qaida members.
The declaration was prompted by the killing a week ago of tribal leader Suhaib Abdullah al-Obeidi. Al-Qaida also killed three Shiites -- a father and his two sons -- and a Communist Party boss.
''We are against the killing of civilians for sectarian or ethnic reasons. That's why we are shedding the blood of Muslim extremists, especially al-Qaida,'' said Abul-Rahman Mansheed, a top Sunni politician in Hawija.
Army Maj. Gen. Anwar Mohammed Amin, in the nearby city of Kirkuk, said the military soon would launch a major attack, with help from the local tribesmen, to clear that region of al-Qaida as well.
Claims such as those issued by the tribesmen and local military officers are nearly impossible to confirm, but the considerable drop in suicide bombings throughout the country recently indicates operations by al-Qaida foreigners have been hampered.
Al-Jadaan, the Anbar tribal leader, looked confidently to the future and -- if his prediction comes true -- what likely will be a hero's role in the eyes of the U.S. military.
''Under my leadership and that of our brothers in other tribes, we are getting close to the shelter of this terrorist,'' al-Jadaan said of al-Zarqawi. ''We will capture him soon.''
BioHazzard
Banned
That just about sums it all up in one brilliant concise stroke.Bobo said:
mindgames
Member
BioHazzard said:
Well when most of the "news" is either:
Censored by the US Government
Produced by Fox
Controlled by the Hollywood scriptwriters, alias the Directors of the embedded selected media
it is no wonder we don't see a lot of reality.
Thank goodness for Amnesty International and human rights groups, as well as those that forced the US at Court to reveal truths such as prisoner murder.
CDB
Registered User
Bobo said:
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The Bush administration used a lot of intelligence to support this war. It turned out some of it was off base. Now that's often taken out of context by leftists and the media. It is true most other intelligence services came to the same conclusions as our own regarding Saddam, Iraq and WMDs. However one has to wonder why the administration chose to ignore all those other intelligence reports which basically said the sanctions/inspections were working and that Saddam had been effectively neutralized as regards WMD production. From the stand point of removing/neutralizing a serious threat we had already done that. As a justification for war it doesn't seem to jibe with the Bush administration's own approach/reasoning. I was not a fan of the sanctions just on a humanitarian level, and because of the black market I was sure would spring up surrounding them. It may be war was the only acceptable alternative that would keep Saddam as a nonthreat.
Granting that, this illustrates my point. Had our previous intervention not stopped with the liberation of Kuwait but ended with Saddams' head on a platter, we likely wouldn't be in Iraq today. And, had Kuwait not been carved off after the war and the borders in the area rewritten, we might not be dealing with our current middle east problems at all, or if so at a much lower level of intensity.
When the central government didn't collapse I wasn't too worried about civil war at this time. However, in skimming the last few issues of Foreign Affairs, which is where I remember the reference, you'll find some more interesting nuances. The army is performing better than expected. Which units? Because there are also reports that the units that are performing the best are ethnically exclusive, or at the very least exclusive of Sunnis. Mixed units are apparently getting more mixed reviews as to their effectiveness. Also the breakout of civil war is less likely while we're there.
As long as the central government has US guns there it's job is easier, if not a cake walk. Once we're out of there or our troop levels are too low to make a difference in any fighting that breaks out, if the center isn't strong enough to hold the entire situation could turn real bad, real fast. What will make the center hold in a good way is Sunni involvement so they see the government as legitimate, not an oppressive force. And while the article Biohazard posted was interesting it doesn't change the fact that the Sunni's are still posing a problem. We can only hope that article is true at this point. What's more, their hatred of Al Qeda, while it may serve our ends does not necessarily mean they're willing to work long term with a Shiite/Kurd majority government.
I agree, the major media is doing a poor job of reporting this. I agree not based on specific experience though. I watch Fox almost exclusively. Watched one other channel when Dennis Miller had a show going, forgot which. The main stream media just sucks at reporting anything worth listening to. All my news is, as I said, from the internet, papers, various news and analysis mags, books etc.
BioHazzard
Banned
No no no... You got it all wrong. The only news worth reading is from those tapes and videos provided by Al Qaeda! Al Qaeda is the truth!! :study:mindgames said:
BioHazzard
Banned
BTW, there is not going to be a civil war in Iraq. The Sunnis are only 20% of the population, eventhough some of them still harbour the delusion that they are actually the majority. The Kurds and Sh1tes have the manpower and the weapons. The Sunnis has little more than a delusion. If there is open warfare, it will be a simple wholesale massacre of the Sunnis. The Kurds and the Sh1tes are not terribly unhappy about that prospect. Al Qaeda daydreams and massacres people on both sides to bring about that prospect. The Sunnis realize they are holding the short end of the stick. Some of them realize that Al Qaeda are insane enough to lead the Sunnis down a path of mass suicide. That is why, the prudent ones are trying to cut the best deal they can with the government, and turn against Al Qaeda.
The radical Sunnis and Al Qaeda are under the impression that the neighboring Sunnis Arab countries will intervene when there is a wholesale massacre of Iraqi Sunnis. So, they are willing to bring about a wholesale massacre of the Sunnis (which some people want to romantize as civil war).
The American has over 100k troops there. No Arab countries would want to butt in. The Sunni Arabs fear Sh1te Iranians. They do not want a Iranian puppet in Iraq. But they also know a Sunni dominated Iraq is history. So, their best option is to cut a deal with the Iraqi government and hoping to acquire influence in Iraq, and in turn, undercut the influence of the Iranians. If they intervene militarily, which is something the Arabs are not known for being successful at, that will bring in open intervention by the Iranians coming to the aide of their Iraqi Sh1te brethens. The Arabs would not want to fight the Iranians. The only viable Arab military is that of Jordan and Egypt. They are not going to fight a long distant war with Iran over some lunatic Iraqi Sunnis.
Civil war requires two sides with viable military power. That is not the case in Iraq. The Iraqi Sunnis are not a military factor and have no foreign support. A mass slaughter of the Sunnis, possble. Civil war, nope.
The radical Sunnis and Al Qaeda are under the impression that the neighboring Sunnis Arab countries will intervene when there is a wholesale massacre of Iraqi Sunnis. So, they are willing to bring about a wholesale massacre of the Sunnis (which some people want to romantize as civil war).
The American has over 100k troops there. No Arab countries would want to butt in. The Sunni Arabs fear Sh1te Iranians. They do not want a Iranian puppet in Iraq. But they also know a Sunni dominated Iraq is history. So, their best option is to cut a deal with the Iraqi government and hoping to acquire influence in Iraq, and in turn, undercut the influence of the Iranians. If they intervene militarily, which is something the Arabs are not known for being successful at, that will bring in open intervention by the Iranians coming to the aide of their Iraqi Sh1te brethens. The Arabs would not want to fight the Iranians. The only viable Arab military is that of Jordan and Egypt. They are not going to fight a long distant war with Iran over some lunatic Iraqi Sunnis.
Civil war requires two sides with viable military power. That is not the case in Iraq. The Iraqi Sunnis are not a military factor and have no foreign support. A mass slaughter of the Sunnis, possble. Civil war, nope.
mindgames
Member
BioHazzard said:
Why do you quote something and then completely ignore it?
Where do you refute one thing I said?
Why do you not counter the validity of AI and Human Rights group sources?
Why do you avoid talking about embedded media lies?
why don't you address the overt PROVEN bias of Fox?
And finally, yes Al Quaeda sources are probably much more accurate.
BioHazzard
Banned
. .mindgames said:Why do you quote something and then completely ignore it?
Sorry, but since you insisted on asking, here goes : Because that is just about the only productive way to deal with it.
Where do you refute one thing I said?
Because you can't productively refute what a person chooses to believe in.
Why do you not counter the validity of AI and Human Rights group sources?
What validity?
Why do you avoid talking about embedded media lies?
What lies?
why don't you address the overt PROVEN bias of Fox?
What proven bias? If anything, FOX is the least biased news media.
And finally, yes Al Quaeda sources are probably much more accurate.
Allah is Great! Kill Infidels !!
spatch
Registered User
snakebyte05 said:
Obviously he wanted people to think he had them. If he didnt have them, goodbye saddams regime, because the people he tortured for years would no longer be aftaid.
"Let them hate us as long as they fear us" - Julius Caesar.
With out WMD, saddam wouldnt have been (as) feared by the iraqui's.
There were 2 choices he could have made
1. Let UN inspect = they dont find anything, eventually people start to think "hey, maybe saddam is all talk."
2. He doesnt let UN inspect = his people fear him because they think he has WMD.
Rogue Drone
Well-known member
Spatch, you come up with some weirdly off real world rationale.
The Iraqi on the streets ruled by Saddam was afraid of WMD?
No, They were intimidated by the possibility of being snatched from their homes and being tortured to death in a dungeon.
The Iraqi on the streets ruled by Saddam was afraid of WMD?
No, They were intimidated by the possibility of being snatched from their homes and being tortured to death in a dungeon.
mindgames
Member
BioHazzard said:
Sigh......Where to start......Well anyone who doesn't know how outrageously slanted Fox is is really a moron - sorry, I don't go in for personal attacks usually but this comment is so stupid.
Well, Fox will do - Ill address the rest of your garbage when i get time. Pay particular attention to the LIES that Fox viewers believed in huge numbers compared to the rest of the US population from watching this crap.
The Fox News Channel has been involved in many controversies and allegations of pro-conservative bias. Supporters of the Fox News Channel agree that it does have a conservative viewpoint but state that this viewpoint is necessary to provide balance against the majority of media outlets which they argue is predominanted by liberal bias. ([1]) Critics of the Fox News Channel point to the following issues as obvious evidence of bias:
Contents [hide]
1 Ownership and management
2 Reports, polls and studies
3 Criticisms of Pundits
4 Other criticisms
5 External links
[edit]
Ownership and management
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch is owner of the Fox News Channel. He has been a subject of controversy and criticism as a result of his substantial influence in both the print and broadcast media. Accusations against him include the "dumbing down" of news and introducing "mindless vulgarity" in place of genuine journalism, and having his owned outlets produce news that serve his own agendas, both political and financial. According to the BBC website: "To some he is little less than the devil incarnate, to others, the most progressive mover-and-shaker in the media business." [2]
Photocopied memos from Fox News executive John Moody instructing the network's on-air anchors and reporters on using positive language when discussing anti-abortion viewpoints, the Iraq war, and tax cuts; as well as requesting that the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal be put in context with the other violence in the area.[3] Former Fox News producer Charlie Reina explained, "The roots of Fox News Channel's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it". [4][5][6]
CEO Roger Ailes, formerly a media/image consultant for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush. Ailes was a significant player in the Willie Horton ad for Bush's 1988 Presidential campaign.
George W. Bush's cousin, John Ellis, was Fox News' projection team manager during the general election of 2000. After speaking numerous times on election night with his cousins George and Jeb, Ellis reversed Fox News' call for Florida as a state won by Al Gore. Critics allege this was a premature decision, given the impossibly razor-thin margin (we now know it was 537 of 5.9 million votes [7]), which created the "lasting impression that Bush 'won' the White House - and all the legal wrangling down in Florida is just a case of Democratic 'snippiness'." [8]
[edit]
Reports, polls and studies
According to a journalism.org survey of 547 journalists from various publications and news outlets, Fox News Channel was found to be most easily identifiable for serving a partisan ideological position:
'At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance - either liberal or conservative - is Fox News Channel. Among national journalists, more than twice as many could identify a daily news organization that they think is "especially conservative in its coverage" than one they believe is "especially liberal" (82% vs. 38%). And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists.' [9]
The 'signature political news show' of the Fox News Channel, "Special Report" was found to have a strong bias in their choice of guests, overwhelmingly choosing conservatives over 'non-conservatives' to appear in interviews. This was the finding of the progressive watchdog group Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), noted in a study taken across a 19 week period. They found the ratio of conservative guests to liberals to be 50:6. [10]
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, in the Winter 03-04 issue of Political Science Quarterly, reported that viewers of the Fox Network local affiliates or Fox News were more likely than viewers of other news networks to hold three views which the authors labeled as misperceptions:[11] (PDF),
67% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization" (Compared with 56% for CBS, 49% for NBC, 48% for CNN, 45% for ABC, 16% for both NPR and PBS). However, the belief that "Iraq was directly involved in September 11" was held by 33% of CBS viewers and only 24% of Fox viewers.
33% of Fox viewers believed that the "U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" "since the war ended". (Compared with 23% for CBS, 20% for both CNN and NBC, 19% for ABC and 11% for both NPR and PBS)
35% of Fox viewers believed that "the majority of people [in the world] favor the U.S. having gone to war" with Iraq. (Compared with 28% for CBS, 27% for ABC, 24% for CNN, 20% for NBC, 5% for both NPR and PBS)
Fox viewers were unique in that those who paid greater attention to news were moderately more likely to have these misperceptions than those who paid less or no attention to news. However it is debatable as to which way the causation runs - it might not be that people who watch Fox News are more likely to hold conservative views, but that people with conservative views are more likely to watch Fox News.
[edit]
Criticisms of Pundits
Bill O'Reilly is one of Fox News' most well-known and popular personalities, and he often faces criticism for a perceived pro-(Iraq) war, conservative slant, and for allegedly using his show to "serially misinform his audiences." [12] O'Reilly himself maintains that he is politically independent (due to libertarian positions on social issues like homosexuality and marijuana legislation). Some critics accuse O'Reilly for frequently using incendiary, emotive, or nationalist rhetoric toward those who hold disagreeing positions. O'Reilly acknowledges his show is not so much news, but more an editorial program. [13]
John Gibson is the host of an afternoon block of news coverage called "The Big Story", and is frequently cited as an example of Fox News blurring the lines between objective reporting and opinion/editorial programming. Gibson angered some liberals immediately after the 2000 presidential election controversy when, during the opinion segment of his show, Gibson said: "Is this a case where knowing the facts actually would be worse than not knowing? I mean, should we burn those ballots, preserve them in amber, or shred them?" and "George Bush is going to be president. And who needs to know that he's not a legitimate president?" [14]. An opinion piece on the Hutton Inquiry decision, in which John Gibson said the BBC had "a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Americanism that was obsessive, irrational and dishonest" and that the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, "insisted on air that the Iraqi Army was heroically repulsing an incompetent American Military" [15]. In reviewing viewer complaints, Ofcom (the United Kingdom's statutory broadcasting regulator) ruled that Fox News had breached the program code in three areas: "respect for truth", "opportunity to take part", and "personal view programmes opinions expressed must not rest upon false evidence". Fox News admitted that Gilligan had not actually said the words that John Gibson appeared to attribute to him; OfCom rejected the claim that it was intended to be a paraphrase. (See Ofcom complaint, response and ruling). Gibson has also supported Karl Rove for outing Valerie Plame, called Joe Wilson a "liar", claimed that "the far left" is working for Al Qaeda [16] and openly admitted that he wished that Paris had been host to the 2012 Olympic Games, because it would have subjected the city to the threat of terrorism instead of London[17].
Business anchor Neil Cavuto, who is also Fox News' vice president of business news and a current member of the network's executive committee, has been described as a "Bush apologist" by critics [18] after conducting an allegedly deferential interview with President George W. Bush. Democratic strategists and politicians boycotted Cavuto's show in 2004 after he claimed, on air, that Bin Laden was rooting for John Kerry in the presidential election, critics contend, in an attempt to create a backlash among voters casting ballots for Bush, against Bin Laden's alleged pick [19].
Brit Hume created controversy, particularly with watchdog groups such as Media Matters for America, when he made the factually incorrect claim that "U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California".In fact, a United States soldier in Iraq is actually 60 times more likely to be killed than an individual in California. [20][21].
Alan Colmes is touted by Fox as "a hard-hitting liberal" ([22]), but is dismissed by many on the left as being a political moderate and too weak to provide an effective balance for self-professed "arch-conservative" Sean Hannity. Liberal viewers have long found Colmes' style infuriating, particularly in contrast to the outspoken Hannity; and Colmes himself has sometimes taken more right-leaning positions, such as supporting Rudy Giuliani for mayor of New York City and defending Mississippi Senator Trent Lott after the latter made racially insensitive remarks at the 100th birthday party for the late Sen. Strom Thurmond. He has been characterized by several newspapers as being Sean Hannity's 'sidekick'([23]). Liberal commentator Al Franken lambasted Colmes in his book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, accusing him of refusing to ask tough questions during debates and neglecting to challenge erroneous claims made by Hannity or his guests. [24]
[edit]
Other criticisms
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, a documentary film on Fox News by left wing activist Robert Greenwald, makes allegations of bias in Fox News by interviewing a number of former employees who discuss the company's practices. For example, Frank O'Donnell, a former employee identified as "Fox News producer", says: "We were stunned, because up until that point, we were allowed to do legitimate news. Suddenly, we were ordered from the top to carry [...] Republican, right-wing propaganda", after being told what to say about Ronald Reagan. O'Donnell actually worked for Washington, D.C. Fox affiliate WTTG, which while a local affiliate, is not the Fox News Channel cable network. Fox News has always stressed that affiliates are separate entities from Fox News Channel, and Fox News has no editorial oversight of any Fox affiliate. The network made an official response and a review of selected employees featured in the film and their employment (or non-employment) with Fox News.
CNN founder Ted Turner accused Fox News of being "dumbed down", "propaganda" and equated the networks popularity to Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1930's Germany, during a speech to the National Association of Television Program Executives. [25]
A news article on the Fox News website during October 2004 by Carl Cameron, chief political correspondent of Fox News, contained three fabricated quotes attributed to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The quotes included: "Women should like me! I do manicures", "Didn't my nails and cuticles look great?" and "I'm metrosexual [Bush's] a cowboy". Fox News retracted the story and apologized, citing a "jest" that became published through "fatigue and bad judgement, not malice."
In June 2004, CEO Roger Ailes responded to some criticism with rebuttal in an online column for the Wall Street Journal ([26]), claiming that Fox's critics intentionally confuse opinion shows such as The O'Reilly Factor with regular news coverage. Ailes noted that Fox News has broken stories harmful to Republicans, stating "Fox News is the network that broke George W. Bush's DUI four days before the election" as an example. The story was broken by then-Fox affiliate WPXT in Portland, Maine.
Special Report with Brit Hume regularly features a panel of political commentators touted as an "allstar panel" and "diverse" by Fox News. The panel generally consists of three people: Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes, two self-described neoconservative hawks, and Mort Kondracke, a self-described conservative Democrat (Kondracke has said that he is "disgusted with the Democratic Party" and that the only reason he isn't a Republican is because "Republicans have failed to be true to themselves as conservatives", referring to deficit spending in the Ronald Reagan administration). In addition, Brit Hume himself maintains a conservative point of view, even taking up that position on the Sunday night equivalent of his own panel, arguing from the conservative Republican position against other, noticeably more liberal Fox News panelists such as Juan Williams, who is rarely featured on the Special Report. Critics contend this overwhelmingly tilts the so-called "diverse" political discussions into one-sided conservative commentary.[27]
Fox has been criticized by a wide spectrum of cable news networks, newspapers, radio talk show hosts and blogs for its perceived pushing of the alleged War on Christmas. A notable slew of Fox news commentators, including John Gibson, Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity devoted much of the air time during the fall 2005 season to alleged acts of "anti-Christian" campaigns by the American Civil Liberties Union to have Christmas decorations removed from public display. [28][29][30][31] Fox, at first, defended itself, dismissing criticism from MSNBC hosts such as Keith Olbermann and the New York Times editorialists as "secular progressives". However, even amongst the pundits at Fox News there was a discomfort with the perceived campaign of their network, climaxing on a special of Fox News Watch with one Fox news pundit, Neil Gabler, aggressively attacking the network's other personalities for pursuing the story. In his words, "Fox news has been pumping the hell out of this thing." [32]
Various media watchdogs have noticed a trend in Fox news reporting in which fox news reporters, anchors and writers (for its website) alter their language to immediately adopt the rhetoric of the Bush administration. For example, in 2002 the White House began referring to suicide bombings as "homicide bombings", and immediately Fox changed its own language to match that, while other media outlets continued using the traditional phrase[33]. The same can be said for "terrorist surveillance", previously known as NSA wiretapping by most commentators, until the White House redesignated it and Fox news adopted the new language [34]. Fox news commentators such as Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto, John Gibson and Brit Hume have also been found to use terms popular within conservative circles, such as "the gay agenda", "abortion on demand", "activist judges" and "secular progressives"[35][36].
During the Terri Schiavo controversy in early 2005, Fox came under attack for its coverage of the affair, which had been pushed by Fox news personality Sean Hannity when he camped outside of the hospital where Schiavo lay dying after her feeding tube was pulled. Every major personality on Fox News - Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, Neil Cavuto, John Gibson - called for her feeding tube to be reinserted, claiming that opposition to such a move was motivated entirely by non-religious, secular Americans and Democratic politicians whom Gibson and O'Reilly slammed for their opposition to Republican legislation being passed to move the case to federal courts, despite polls unanimously showing public support for the tube's removal to hover around 77% [37], with a majority of Republicans supporting it[38] [39][40]. The main controversy surrounding Fox's coverage of the event, however, centered around the refusal of the network to inform its viewers who one of the main players of the controversy was, namely Randall Terry, a notorious figure in conservative circles for his often violent acts, calls for the murder of abortion doctors and so-called activist judges[41]. When a Republican talking points memo went into circulation [42], suggesting that Republicans could use the issue to appeal to their base, Fox News personalities immediately attacked the memo and claimed that liberals/Democrats had forged the memo [43][44]. Later, after the true authors were revealed, Fox did not do a followup on it.
Critics of the network contend that Fox specializes in "political sabotage" by putting up moderate to conservative "Democrats" as token liberals against more staunchly conservative Republicans. Examples of the so-called Fox News liberal include:
Alan Colmes - Who endorsed Republican Rudy Giuliani for mayor
Bernard Goldberg - Who has referred to liberals as "angry, nasty, closed minded, & not mainstream, but fringe." Goldberg has raised eyebrows in his claiming that the media has a liberal bias by openly admitting in an interview that Fox News is, in fact, a right-wing outlet.[45]
Pat Caddell [46]- Who has called the Democratic party a "confederacy of gangsters"
Susan Estrich [47]- Known for her opposition to liberal Democrats and support for the Democratic Leadership Council
**** Morris [48]- Who virulently opposes Hillary Clinton and seeks to elect Condoleezza Rice to the office of the presidency
Zell Miller [49]- Wildly well-known for his inflammtory remarks against liberals and Democrats
Mort Kondracke [50]
See [[51]]
The network, additionally, has been criticized for instances in which it has stated false information to its viewers when identifying political guests. A recent example includes an interview on Hannity & Colmes in which two guests were brought on, one a Republican and the other a supposed Democrat, to debate an issue. However, the Democrat, former congressman Jimmy Hayes was, in fact, a former Republican politician who, along with neither of the hosts, acknowledged the misidentification of him as a Democrat.[52]
Another point of contention among Fox's critics is its perceived habit of ridiculing, in some cases viciously, liberal protesters, while portraying conservative activists and protesters as more humble. Examples include Bill O'Reilly referring to protesters at the Republican National Convention in 2004 as "terrorists", or Fox columnist Mike Straka referring to anti-war protesters at the September, 24 2005 march in Washington, D.C. as "jobless, anti-American, clueless, smelly, stupid traitors" and "protesters from hell"[53][54][55].
On the subject of polls Fox has also come under attack due to the remarkably different results it tabulates in comparison to virtually all other polling networks, newspapers, organizations, etc... For example, of 28 national polls conducted from January 1rst - March 2nd, Fox News produced three polls, two of which were the only polls that showed George W. Bush with disapproval ratings below 50%, as low as 47% disapproval with 44% approval, the smallest margin of difference of any poll taken in four months, despite polls within the exact same frame of time showing disapproval ratings as high as 59% and approval typically around 40%. A poll taken by Ap-Isos on the day after Fox's poll showed ten percent higher disapproval than Fox's.[56][57]
After President Bush gave a speech on February 9, 2006 claiming that a plot was foiled to blow up the Library Tower in Los Angeles, clips from the 1996 movie Independence Day of the alien spaceship destroying the building with a giant ray gun ran on the February 9 edition of Fox News Live and the February 9 edition of The Big Story.
FOX News - particularly Your World with Neil Cavuto - has had a history of somehow making scantly clad supermodels part of news stories. Supermodels - including some from the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show - were regular fixtures on the show throughout December 2005. Your World featured a story in February 2006 about right-wing supermodel Anna Benson, and another report that same month was about a stripper who was a devout Christian. More recently, when covering the 78th Annual Academy Awards, FOX always removed on-screen text to show female reporters' and commentators' revealing dresses, but the text wasn't removed during other parts of the pre-awards coverage.
The Simpsons has made a number of critcisms and spoofs of Fox News (and the Fox network in general). In the episode Mr. Spritz Goes to Washington, Republican and Democrat congress candidates appear on Fox News. The show's announcer opens with 'Welcome to Fox News, your voice for evil'. The Republican is shown with a halo above his head, whilst the democrat is depitcted with devil's horns and is shown upside down, with a USSR flag in the background. There is also a 'news-ticker' at the bottom of the screen including, amongst others, stories such as 'Do Democrats cause cancer? Find out at foxnews.com' and 'Rupert Murdoch: Terrific Dancer'[58].
[edit]
External links
Official Site
News Corporation - Fox's parent company.
Museum of Broadcast Communications: Ailes, Roger
News Hounds - Watchdog blog critical of Fox News Channel.
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism - The critical documentary's website.
Outfoxed streaming Dutch VPRO documentary by Tegenlicht. Introduction, several seconds, in Dutch with story itself in English and Dutch subtitles; 50 min. Broadband internet needed.
Guardian Unlimited special report: Fox - the naked truth, October 5, 2004, Zoe Williams, The Guardian
The Fifth Estate: Sticks and Stones, CBC - Bob McKeown investigates Fox News for The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 45 min.
"The Most Powerful Smell in News" - Origin of the "Faux News" logo.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies_and_allegations_of_bias"
mindgames
Member
BioHazzard said:
Anyone who out of hand without evidence claims that AI and your own Nation's human rights organisation are invalid is pathetically avoiding the issue and clutching at straws.
Come on Bio - for once stop using the derisive, purile tactic of avoiding the issues by glibly sidestepping ......actually show us all EVIDENCE of AI lies or admit YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Rogue Drone
Well-known member
Admit your a stinkin commie pinko lefty hippie, Mind :icon_lol: and maybe Bio will admit he's a arrogant Nazi toad that's been intellectually anal raped repeatedly by CDB.
BioHazzard
Banned
Dude... you guys are living on a different planet.mindgames said:
If you are willing to learn, then I would be inclined to show you the way, and point you to the direction where you can get facts on the ground.
But I am convinced that you are not interested in learning about the facts or the truth. You are only interested in venting your erroneous misperception of reality among your own fringe group. That is fine. It is a free world, freedom of speech is a universal right.
The reason I know I am right is because my camp is shaping events in the world, while you and your buddies sit around and wonder how on earth that the world is just not what you think it ought to be. So, sorry but no thanks. I am not interested in wading through the fantasy world of fringe group. But you and your buddies are welcomed to indulge yourselves in what you believe.
We got work to do. America under the leadership of President George W Bush, with the help of a few good men and women, will make the world a better and safer place for all humanity. :hammer:
See ya, till next time.
P.S. When and if you ever get fed up with the world passing you by while you continue to be haunted by a world that is not conforming to what you think it ought to be, let me know, I would be glad to point you to the right direction. Trust me, I know what it feels like to live in a world that does not conform to what you think how it ought to be. But I out grew all of that.
BioHazzard
Banned
lol... CDB lives in his own mind. His world is what he imagines it is. It is a safe living. lol I am happy for him. Actually, I am kind of sorry for him. I know many of his kind. They live a sad existence inside a world of their own imagination, with no say nor control of their own destiny. They are passengers. Our system allows that kind of existence. OTOH, it takes a real man to live with the constant uncertainty of death, with the full knowledge that those he may die for, will neither recognize nor even aware of what he has done for them. But that's ok, because in assuming such risk, we are in charge of shaping the future. We are the master and architect of our world. That is the life!Rogue Drone said:
I would not want to live through life with no control, no say in destiny, but only sit around, wondring why the world is not what I think it ought to be. That would be indeed a sad and pathetic existence. Men are not mean to live like that.And you Rogue Drone, a word to the wise, you are not a teen anymore. Life is passing us by, as we post here. Don't waste your life on a bunch of strangers in a virtual world. There is a real world outside. You don't want to wait till you are 50 and realize that you wish you could have done something more with your life. Good luck and best wishes to you.
mindgames
Member
Anyone else notice how Bio goes on a scarily meandering monologue, tanited with a blend of condescendence and vague murmerings about a utopin "my camp.' (mein kampf ???)
His messiah complex leads him to implore us to "allow him to show us the way......."
Get help......................seriously I mean.
Again you do not even skirt the challenge I set you to actually shoot down AI or challenge my post showing Fox is a Warmongering Hollywood version of Bushville.
Drone.......I am not of the left. In a utopian world I'd be a lover of Democracy in the strict Platonic sense. I accept that this Democracy is unweildy and untenable in our world of today. However, I am a true lover of democratic values - uppermost of these is.........
ACCOUNTABILITY
This is THE biggest tenet of democratic process.
Bush is so far outside the goalposts he's not even in the same field.
I get so annoyed when people like Bio who are hawkish totalitarians accuse me of being non democratic when ironically enough their stance doesn't approximate any facet of democracy.
His messiah complex leads him to implore us to "allow him to show us the way......."
Get help......................seriously I mean.
Again you do not even skirt the challenge I set you to actually shoot down AI or challenge my post showing Fox is a Warmongering Hollywood version of Bushville.
Drone.......I am not of the left. In a utopian world I'd be a lover of Democracy in the strict Platonic sense. I accept that this Democracy is unweildy and untenable in our world of today. However, I am a true lover of democratic values - uppermost of these is.........
ACCOUNTABILITY
This is THE biggest tenet of democratic process.
Bush is so far outside the goalposts he's not even in the same field.
I get so annoyed when people like Bio who are hawkish totalitarians accuse me of being non democratic when ironically enough their stance doesn't approximate any facet of democracy.
mindgames
Member
Also - on a slightly different facet, so on a different posting:
If "Unevolved" was a terminal disease, its most manifest symptom would be warfare.
It is a true reflection of our imbecility that War is the most effective way we have of working things out.
People like Bio need to stop flattering themselves that they are 'bringing freedom', or 'making / shaping a better world.
They only reflect our lack of evolution, lack of brains and lack of foresight.
We are talking about humans taking lives for God's sake - when will we ever grow up? The Bio's would say well we have to fight coz they'll get us otherwise............ a REAL word to the wise, Bio, re - read the above.
If "Unevolved" was a terminal disease, its most manifest symptom would be warfare.
It is a true reflection of our imbecility that War is the most effective way we have of working things out.
People like Bio need to stop flattering themselves that they are 'bringing freedom', or 'making / shaping a better world.
They only reflect our lack of evolution, lack of brains and lack of foresight.
We are talking about humans taking lives for God's sake - when will we ever grow up? The Bio's would say well we have to fight coz they'll get us otherwise............ a REAL word to the wise, Bio, re - read the above.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
mindgames said:
I don't see anyone saying Fox news is the truth. The same arguement you make can be made in the reverse for CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, etc...they are more liberal biased (some more than others) than anything but you have one large station that is conservative and its the devil.
Nobody is saying all these are the truth. What they are saying is that the majority of what those liberal stations are stating about is being horrible over there and on the brink of civil war is overdramatized bull****.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Rogue Drone said:
Chemical and biological weapons are considered WMD.
Ask the Kurds.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
mindgames said:
Until 100% of the population has evolved to the point where a threat of any kind doens't trigger any kind of violent response within the human brain OR everyone comes to a belief that a supreme being doens't exist or if he does he doesn't warrant violent action in the name of him, then you belief will only be a belief. It completely ignores human nature as it exists today.
Its not a right or wrong issue, its an issue about dealing with the reality of the situation. Anyone who is so blind to believe that we can exist without war in this time period are just as blind as those who thirst for it.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
mindgames said:
Just doing a simple search can find some questions about AI. Then again, its based on your percetpion and what you choose to beleive. I don't think anyone out there believes America is guilt free in any sense but to say we are the worst when we spend more money on humantarian aid than other other country seems a bit strange.
"The Truth About Amnesty International: The Lies And The Whole Truth
Today, Amnesty International (predictably) slammed the US and Israel in a report on the state of global human rights. Notwithstanding the upside down nature of the report- somehow democratic states are portrayed as the worst offenders, with the mainstream media dutifully and gleefully playing along as the most egregious human rights violators barely are worthy of mention.
The media, in their response to the AI report are devoting millions of words excoriating the US, Israel and other democratic states. What the media and AI will not tell you is why there is an imbalance in the amount of words expended on the US, Israel and other states in the AI report. The fact of the matter is, outside of democratic states, AI is severely hampered in their information gathering. That's right- the worst offenders do not allow access to their countries. There is a dearth of information. In other words, AI is aware they don't know. AI can't be bothered to tell you that reality. If they did, their credibility as the informed source of human rights information would be compromised.
There is something else AI and the media won't tell you. What little access AI has to many countries is directly related to what they write about that country. Ask yourselves a question: Why would a country with a notorious human rights record allow AI back in, after a 'bad' report? The answer is simple. By playing down the severity of the human rights violations, AI guarantees itself the ability to return. Once again, it's about credibility. If AI can show 'access,' it is presumed they are reporting the truth. Notorious human rights violators are only too happy to be in 'middle of the pack.'
When the Arab world, for example, or China lecture us on human rights violations, we can be excused for a reflexive bit of laughter. Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and Jordan are far more egregious purveyors of human rights violations, including religious persecution and the persecution of women. China, for years the standard bearer of political persecution, continues it's 'long march' of oppression (and the sale of human organs 'donated' by prisoners) during the current economic boom.
Do you suppose these Arab countries and China allow unrestricted access to AI investigators? We have been to some of these countries. Tourists are not allowed unrestricted access and movement. Why doesn't AI report that truth?
We are not questioning the need for vigilance in the protection of rights. We are questioning- actually, confronting- AI and the media and asking if their concern is really human rights or if in fact their agenda is political.
AI has long had a political agenda. That agenda has long been endorsed and embraced by the media. The media does not question AI on access, content influence or on final recommendations. Suppose an organization of different kind produced a report on matters controversial and said, 'Here is the truth- we have no agenda.'
Do you think the media would be so accommodating and accepting?
Now, you may want question SC&A about how we know all this. Well, we do. Really. Neither AI or the media can dispute anything we have written. None of it."
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
As with most things, there are two sides of the story:
U.S. Private International Giving to Developing World Exceeds $62 Billion
Hudson study shows American generosity to poor nations over 3 1/2 times U.S. Government aid
June 29, 2005
by Carol Adelman
Hudson Institute released new private international giving numbers today in a white paper, "America's Total Economic Engagement with the Developing World," by Dr. Carol Adelman, Mr. Jeremiah Norris and Ms. Jeanne Weicher. Updating their research on American generosity, the authors found at least $62.1 billion in U.S. private donations to developing countries in 2003, the last year numbers are available. This philanthropy, from U.S. foundations, corporations, non-profits and volunteerism, universities and colleges, religious organizations and individuals is over three and one-half times U.S. Official Development Assistance (ODA) of $16.3 billion.
While the United States gives the greatest absolute amount of ODA to developing countries, it is routinely criticized for being "stingy" because U.S. Government aid ranks last among donor nations as a percent of Gross National Income (GNI). U.S. official aid is .15 percent of GNI compared to Norway, the highest ranked donor, at .92 percent.
What such criticism ignores, however, is that the measure, developed by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), fails to take into account the primary way in which Americans help others abroad: through the private sector. "ODA is an outdated and inaccurate way of measuring a country's generosity," says Dr. Adelman, Director of the Center for Science in Public Policy, at the Hudson Institute. "Americans prefer to give people to people assistance versus Europeans who give primarily government to government aid."
Nor does the OECD fully measure count U.S. military contributions to peacekeeping and security, U.S. private industry investments that generate the bulk of research and development for better food and medicines, or preferential trade agreements that support imports from developing countries. The measure also excludes the $1.5 billion in foreign aid that the U.S. provides to Israel, Central and Eastern Europe, and Russia since these countries exceed the OECD poverty criterion.
Most importantly, the number does not include $51 billion of U.S. private capital flows to developing countries, consisting of foreign direct investment and net capital markets. This private investment creates jobs and economic growth, the surest way to reducing poverty.
U.S. Private International Giving to Developing World Exceeds $62 Billion
Hudson study shows American generosity to poor nations over 3 1/2 times U.S. Government aid
June 29, 2005
by Carol Adelman
Hudson Institute released new private international giving numbers today in a white paper, "America's Total Economic Engagement with the Developing World," by Dr. Carol Adelman, Mr. Jeremiah Norris and Ms. Jeanne Weicher. Updating their research on American generosity, the authors found at least $62.1 billion in U.S. private donations to developing countries in 2003, the last year numbers are available. This philanthropy, from U.S. foundations, corporations, non-profits and volunteerism, universities and colleges, religious organizations and individuals is over three and one-half times U.S. Official Development Assistance (ODA) of $16.3 billion.
While the United States gives the greatest absolute amount of ODA to developing countries, it is routinely criticized for being "stingy" because U.S. Government aid ranks last among donor nations as a percent of Gross National Income (GNI). U.S. official aid is .15 percent of GNI compared to Norway, the highest ranked donor, at .92 percent.
What such criticism ignores, however, is that the measure, developed by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), fails to take into account the primary way in which Americans help others abroad: through the private sector. "ODA is an outdated and inaccurate way of measuring a country's generosity," says Dr. Adelman, Director of the Center for Science in Public Policy, at the Hudson Institute. "Americans prefer to give people to people assistance versus Europeans who give primarily government to government aid."
Nor does the OECD fully measure count U.S. military contributions to peacekeeping and security, U.S. private industry investments that generate the bulk of research and development for better food and medicines, or preferential trade agreements that support imports from developing countries. The measure also excludes the $1.5 billion in foreign aid that the U.S. provides to Israel, Central and Eastern Europe, and Russia since these countries exceed the OECD poverty criterion.
Most importantly, the number does not include $51 billion of U.S. private capital flows to developing countries, consisting of foreign direct investment and net capital markets. This private investment creates jobs and economic growth, the surest way to reducing poverty.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
I will be backing Chuck Norris for President.
milwood
Registered User
I heard that the truth behind all the WMD issue was, in fact, quite differnt from what was originally charged.
Saddam was actually only mildly interested in the weapons, but was very interested in acquiring powerful anabolic steroids. As a secret Bay Area baseball fan, Mr. Hussein followed closely the McGwire/Sosa homerun derby several years ago, and also had inside info that Barry Bonds was indeed using the juice.
Saddam got some bad information, and was apparently experiencing regular nausea from overconsumption of flax seed oil. He was determined to get his hands on some of "the cream" and "the clear". PA's name came across the wire at one time, but as it turned out, the subsequent shipment to Iraq was nothing more than a lifetime supply of AMP, beta version.
Saddam's recent outbursts in court during his trial for crimes against humanity (according to this report) are the result of his withdrawal from amphetamines, which is what he had been inadvertently using pre-workout for at least 6 months having been duped by his captors in Iraq who had switched out his AMP in attempt to steal the secret formula and create a chocamine/geranium bomb.
Saddam was actually only mildly interested in the weapons, but was very interested in acquiring powerful anabolic steroids. As a secret Bay Area baseball fan, Mr. Hussein followed closely the McGwire/Sosa homerun derby several years ago, and also had inside info that Barry Bonds was indeed using the juice.
Saddam got some bad information, and was apparently experiencing regular nausea from overconsumption of flax seed oil. He was determined to get his hands on some of "the cream" and "the clear". PA's name came across the wire at one time, but as it turned out, the subsequent shipment to Iraq was nothing more than a lifetime supply of AMP, beta version.
Saddam's recent outbursts in court during his trial for crimes against humanity (according to this report) are the result of his withdrawal from amphetamines, which is what he had been inadvertently using pre-workout for at least 6 months having been duped by his captors in Iraq who had switched out his AMP in attempt to steal the secret formula and create a chocamine/geranium bomb.
CDB
Registered User
BioHazzard said:lol... CDB lives in his own mind. His world is what he imagines it is. It is a safe living. lol I am happy for him. Actually, I am kind of sorry for him. I know many of his kind. They live a sad existence inside a world of their own imagination, with no say nor control of their own destiny. They are passengers. Our system allows that kind of existence. OTOH, it takes a real man to live with the constant uncertainty of death, with the full knowledge that those he may die for, will neither recognize nor even aware of what he has done for them. But that's ok, because in assuming such risk, we are in charge of shaping the future. We are the master and architect of our world. That is the life!
William Murry said:
Book of Job said:
Samuel Butler said:
Thomas Gray said:
You know the truth and would teach it, but others simply cannot learn... How tragic and heroic your life must be. Your camp is shaping the world, but a snake shapes the earth he slithers on, and is still easily stomped on and it's often well worth the extra step. I know my life, so insults from someone like you are nothing to me. One wonders though, considering your posts, what kind of person gets their jollies by posting insults directed towards people he does not know, accented with cartoons for good measure. I like a good spirited debate, don't even mind name calling. It's fun. There's just one thing sorely lacking in your posts: coherent ideas worth debating.
- Status